[Letter to Bennett Johnston from Jon Cohen]

TO: SEN. BENNETT JOHNSTON c/o TONY GARRETT
FROM: JON COHEN
November 4, 1992
Dear Sen. Johnston,
I am a contributing correspondent to Science magazine, and since
October 1, 1992, I have been attempting to learn through your
assistant press secretary, Claire Miller, what role you played in
the legislation appropriating $20 million to the Department of
Defense for a large-scale trial of the therapeutic AIDS vaccine,
gpl60. Ms. Miller did inform me that former Sen. Russell Long
brought this to your attention, but I did not learn until
recently the extent of your interest in this legislation. I have
left several messages for Tony Garrett, but I have yet to hear
from him. Hence I am faxing you the following questions:
1. Did you introduce the language regarding this $20 million that
came out of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations report on
September 177
2. If so, when did you introduce the language? Records show that
you were not at the subcommittee meeting on September 16. Was it
done during the markup process?
3. On October 5, 1992, you stated for the record that ''CD4
counts which are a measure of the functioning of the immune
system have been shown to be stabilized rather than declining,
and the amount of virus in recipients has been stabilized rather
than declining.'' What is the specific evidence you relied on
before making these statements?
4. You next state that the large-scale efficacy trial would
''produce the final data to be gathered for the Food and Drug
Administration [FDA] licensing process.'' Is it your
understanding that this Phase III, large-scale trial--as opposed
to the ongoing Phase II trial at Walter Reed--is necessary to
obtain data for FDA licensing? If so, why?
5. You then state that ''promising statements'' should be ''fully
investigated as soon as possible'' and you warn about the cost of
''delay motivated out of the desire for greater scientific
accuracy.'' Do you believe that gpl60 is not being fully
investigated as quickly as possible? If so, what are the
shortcomings of the ongoing, 600-person Phase II trial at Walter
Reed that a larger trial would overcome? What, specifically, are
the comparative timelines necessary to determine efficacy for
both the 600-person trial and the larger trial you have
advocated?

IIII11111 I 1111lll lI 11 I lll IIIII I
5571095.0199.133